Sun Coverage

Sharron Angle has never been a champion of renewable energy. But in the last days of her campaign, her established disdain appears to have morphed into a call to dismantle the green jobs industry, one of Nevada’s few – and probably best – hopes of climbing out of the recession.

At her campaign rally Friday evening, Angle’s camp showcased a video featuring scenes of what the Tea Party has identified as Washington’s betrayals of the past few years, among them: the passing of the health care bill, the passing of the stimulus bill, and Obama’s signing a renewed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia (which, as history buffs and adults over the age of 30 will recall, was actually the construct of Republican presidents: conceived of by Nixon, proposed by Reagan, and signed by Bush I).

Part of the montage was this unmistakable visual message: “Green Jobs: SCAM” – a full-screen shot that displayed the words in white against a dark green background, with the word “SCAM” appearing most prominently in the center of the screen.

With that, Angle’s espousing a line lifted straight from the Tea Party playbook: that investing in green energy has created no jobs, and should be stopped.

That could possibly be construed a reasonable argument but for one thing: in Nevada, it’s palpably untrue.

The idea that Nevada’s ticket out of the recession rides on an industry that has yet to come to its full fruition isn’t just a talking point for Harry Reid’s campaign.

To be sure, Reid’s influence has been the chief reason so many stimulus dollars and government backed loans have come to Nevada for solar panel construction, geothermal development, and energy transmission projects – all of which have and are expected to continue to create high-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced; not even to other states, much less countries.

Republicans and Democrats across the state have grasped onto Reid’s renewable gravy train as simply the newest way to do what Nevadans have been doing since the pioneer days – use the resources of the land to develop and deliver a product that’s in high demand across the country.

Green jobs investment is no longer a proxy debate about global warming, or the merits of “reduce, reuse, recycle” versus “drill, baby, drill.” It’s about pure state self-interest in the face of market-driven economics.

As states across the country dedicate themselves to achieve renewable energy standards in the coming years, several states – Nevada among them – have seen an opportunity to build a home-grown energy industry.

For Nevada, the customers are close by. California has committed itself to having 33 percent of its electrical energy come from renewable resources by 2020. That’s the most ambitious standard in the country, but #2 is also a close neighbor – Colorado expects its electrical production to be 30 percent renewable by the same year.

That creates, in effect, an open market. Nevada’s got no close regional competitor for large-scale renewable energy construction, not even from neighboring big-nuclear-power states – because nuclear fuel, though powerful, is still a non-renewable resource, and thus doesn’t help those states get any closer to their benchmark goals.

Nationwide, Nevada isn’t alone in its endeavor to answer the call for a new market, and create an industry that wasn’t there before. In North Dakota, Republicans have been some of the most vocal backers and boosters of wind energy, calling it a “smart growth” resource. North Dakota’s progress in wind energy has also benefitted from political infighting among its neighbors, that has hampered similar development in other, equally windy, Plains states.

Similar things are happening across the pond. Europe is probably the highest-concentrated area of energy-consuming states with almost no domestic carbon-fuel resources. It’s also the part of the world that’s the most advanced in terms of nuclear energy technology and production, and most dependent on its use.

But Europe is right now doing everything it can to get in on the green jobs revolution.

In the last two years, German firms have been buying up land in North Africa, to set up solar fields in the high-heat deserts of Algeria, Libya, and Morocco that they say could harness enough energy to power over two-thirds of Europe and Northern Africa by 2050. They plan to harness the sun’s energy in North Africa, and then run cables under the Mediterranean to bring that energy to Europe.

Even France, which covers almost 80 percent of its domestic energy needs from nuclear power plants, appears to have seen the renewable writing on the wall, leading it to similar investments in Morocco.

That’s food for thought in Nevada, where the sunshine and terrain are much the same, but where the candidates right now are bickering over what the best engine is to create energy jobs: invest in renewables, as Reid has done and wants to continue to do, or open up Yucca Mountain as a nuclear reprocessing site, as Angle wishes.

(Interestingly enough, John McCain, one of nuclear energy’s biggest boosters, was also headlining Angle’s campaign event at which the “Green Jobs SCAM” video was shown. McCain has complained in the past that Reid’s insistence on keeping Yucca Mountain nuclear-free is holding up plans to expand nuclear development.)

As an industry-in-development, Reid’s plan does depend not so much on government dollars as government guarantees, so that corporations wanting to build the plants that will produce renewable energy can get the optimum low-interest loans necessary to break ground on shovel-ready projects. That’s been Reid’s role thus far: to make sure the pipeline for development stays open from Washington’s end.

There’s a far more existential crimp in Angle’s plan. A critical piece of nuclear reprocessing is the cooling mechanism, usually done with water; one of those non-renewable resources that Nevada has in very short supply. In her mid-October debate with Reid, Angle suggested an alternative: liquid metal.

The process she’s referring to is known as “pyroprocessing” – which like the name suggests, is supposed to be a higher-temperature way of rendering spent nuclear fuel innocuous. While the idea gained some traction as a concept earlier this decade, and a few U.S. patents were issued for designs, the practice soon fell out of favor in the industry, and is barely in use worldwide – even though several countries reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

The best hope for resuscitating liquid metal plants appears to be if “Generation IV” reactors ever come online; but those aren’t expected to be anywhere near ready for commercial construction before 2030.

To be fair to Angle, she in her own, uttered words, has never gone further than to call green jobs “designer” jobs: it’s just that the video her campaign is airing to its supporters displays a full-screen “Green Jobs SCAM” graphic over a picture (much like the words-and-images mockups for things like “Cash For Clunkers” that precede it).

But to be fair to the industry, we’re not talking about jobs that don’t already exist in limited, industry-opening numbers, or demand an advanced technological degree. It may take scientists to design the factors of renewable production, but it takes manufacturing factories to build the products, and maintenance workers to keep them running – a modern blue-collar (make that green) economy.

Join the Discussion:

Previous Discussion: 37 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

There is so much misinformation in the article it is hard to know where to start:

"That creates, in effect, an open market. Nevada's got no close regional competitor for large-scale renewable energy construction, not even from neighboring big-nuclear-power states -- because nuclear fuel, though powerful, is still a non-renewable resource, and thus doesn't help those states get any closer to their benchmark goals."

What about the 1,000 MW Project in Blythe California and the 500 MW (?) projects in Arizona or the very large wind projects in Colorado. The fact is that every state in the region is attempting to develop their own renewable resources. They have the same strategy as Nevada and larger internal markets for electricity. Nevada's internal markets will be saturated very soon.

Green jobs investment is no longer a proxy debate about global warming, or the merits of "reduce, reuse, recycle" versus "drill, baby, drill." It's about pure state self-interest in the face of market-driven economics.

Wrong. It is about subsidies (see Blythe California $1.9 million); property tax abatements; and set asides (legislated renewable energy requirements that are paid for by ratepayers)

"But to be fair to the industry, we're not talking about jobs that don't already exist in limited, industry-opening numbers, or demand an advanced technological degree. It may take scientists to design the factors of renewable production, but it takes manufacturing factories to build the products, and maintenance workers to keep them running -- a modern blue-collar (make that green) economy."

Wrong. Exactly how many green jobs are not subsidized in Nevada?

"morphed into a call to dismantle the green jobs industry, one of Nevada's few -- and probably best -- hopes of climbing out of the recession."

Wrong. If we are reliant on green jobs to climb out of the recession, we are in deep deep trouble, far deeper than I supposed.

They have no mission, no plans, no platforms. They have nothing, except perhaps, fear and hatred.

In a recent phone survey I was asked if I agreed with the Tea Party's ideas. To which I responded, "which positive ideas?" The pollster could not tell me anything positive, just negative propaganda. That is the Tea Party in a nutshell.

As an industry-in-development, Reid's plan does depend not so much on government dollars as government guarantees, so that corporations wanting to build the plants that will produce renewable energy can get the optimum low-interest loans necessary to break ground on shovel-ready projects. That's been Reid's role thus far: to make sure the pipeline for development stays open from Washington's end.

As I recall the Blythe Project in California is get $1.9 billion in subsidies ($6 billion project). The result will be 400,000 in property tax revenues for Riverside County (chump change).

Can anyone name one project here in Nevada that has gotten a loan guarantee? I think that transmission line did but I have not heard of any others. (perhaps someone can educate me on this)

"Sharron Angle has never been a champion of renewable energy. But in the last days of her campaign, her established disdain appears to have morphed into a call to dismantle the green jobs industry, one of Nevada's few -- and probably best -- hopes of climbing out of the recession."

Wrong. Angle cannot personally dismantle any industry. Now if reducing the generous subsidies means dismantling that suggest more issues with the economic viability of the industry than her capacity to dismantle it with a set of box wrenches and a blow torch.

More crap and lies to throw at Angle....The biggest liars are reid and his supporters...Distortions galore...They could not speak the truth if it hit them in the face....Green jobs, our country is being shaped after Europe...Spain lost two regular jobs for every one green jobs....Their unemployment is some where near twenty percent....Maybe with all the brain trust that this country elects will soon have us at that level....But then we just have to return those idiots to office...NOT!!!

If you elect Sharron then we'll have 2 worthless senators from Nevada. her AND John Ensign.Don't elect Sharron just because you don't like Harry Reid. I'm no fan of Harry but Sharron is scary and a real nutjob.

The wind blows & the sun shines in Nevada. How can those two natural resources in abundance not create green energy jobs? Germany is screaming ahead in alternative energy innovation because the German government is subsidizing the expense. Today, the heads of Google, Coca Cola, and others joined Bill Gates in their emphatic call that government MUST provide the seed money if we are to have a new innovative revolution that will provide the next 20 years of industry, growth, and jobs that we need in America.

It is a matter of common sense. It is sunny and windy in much of Nevada just about every day . The whole state could be run on renewable energy. How is that a bad thing? We subsidize the oil companies with hundreds of billions of dollars and you are complaining about $1.9 billion in subsidies for renewables? Are you kidding me? People have become so entrenched that they seem to oppose good things just BECAUSE it might be good for the environment. Sharon Angle wants to build coal fired plants and reprocess nuclear waste with technology that doesn't exist. I'm rooting for Harry Reid and renewables.

All one needs to do is look what happened to Spain with them stacking everything on so called Green Jobs, it destroyed their country.

Sure Angle wants to work to become non dependent on oil. She is just not crazy enough to fall for the sell job they gave to Spain. Do your Homework people these State Run Media Trolls that are really Socialist and Communists at Heart think you people are slow.

Take a good look at your country and what has happened over the past 2 years, vote the Leeches that have to be sent home kicking and screaming to the curb.

Yes, it is sunny and the wind blows most days in Nevada. The wind resources in this state are not particularly good. The cost according to the Review Journal is between 9 and 10 cents just to generate and not deliver the electricity to your home. Second, the conventional generation needs to be installed to provide electricity at times when the wind doesn't blow. So you pay twice for the wind and the gas plant to back it up.

The 1000 MW solar plant will provide the equivalent of 250 MW at about 14 cents per kilowatt hour. A new gas plant produces electricity at 6.4 cents per kilowatt hour. See California Energy Commission report on the project ($billion/ 2,100,000 MWh per year * 20 years.

If I took the $1.9 billion subsidy, I could build 200 homes at $200,000 each at a total cost of $40 million. If I taxed the homes at $2,000 each per year I would create the same tax revenue as the Blythe plant each year.

If I paid the occupants of the houses (2 per house) $100,000 per person or $200,000 per household per year for 20 years or a total of $800 million to do nothing, I would have housed, taxed, and paid very good wages for a total of $840 million. More jobs than the solar plant. I have also saved the treasury $1 Billion that could be used for schools, highways or other purpose.

The remaining $4 billion could be used to build and fuel modern gas fired generation of 1,000,000 or net generation of about 700 MW depending on the operation of the plants. There is no net economic gain, only loses.

Tony why not work on checking my math. The solar boondoggle is creating jobs, it is taking jobs. I can save money and produce electricity with natural gas generation, which is very clean for a lot less than the solar plant. The 1000 MW translate into 250 MW, which isn't squat in the real world all for $6 billion which is a lot of money in the real world.

I don't think people realize that this is a watershed moment in whether our country will go on fighting for oil in foreign countries or follow Harry Reid's lead in implementing renewable energy. That's what the election is really all about, why Big Oil is contributing so heavily to Sharron Angle, why all the fear tactics about Muslims taking over our country and false claims of higher morality, over supporting people on welfare. We can't go on sacrificing our soldiers and economy over war for oil. Remember the budget surplus when Clinton left office.

Tell all my neighbors up here in northern Nevada that are living off the grid that renewables aren't viable. As the technology improves the cost will go down. We can do this people. The railroads, the national highway system, electricity transmission, telephone, etc. etc. All of these advancements were made possible with government help. We need the national will to develop and build the infrastructure.

I don't disagree with using solar panels to generate electricity in fact I think it is a good idea. What I do disagree with is funding two Chinese companies that will employ only 1300 when there are over 170,000 unemployed in this state. That is not a good return on a huge investment coming right out of your pockets.

We have been sold a bill of goods and there is no way green jobs will do nothing more than get us deeper in debt. Since this is being done at tax payer expense and when our electric bills double no one is going to be happy about that. By the way since the government has decided to go green look at the sky rocketing prices for solar equipment"

The thought of nuclear energy companies flooding shadow orgs like American Crossroads with Hate Harry cash is repulsive. They don't care about you, me or Angle, they just want Harry gone to dig their claws into any Yucca Mountain profit that can be had once he's gone. And then WE'RE the one's stuck with Angle for SIX years.

Incredibly stupid article. In Spain they have found that for every green job new regs produce it costs TWO normal jobs. The green jobs in the US have cost an average of $550,000 apiece. Until the tech develops where it is economically viable, and it is a long way from that, it will just be another albatross around the neck of the US. AT best it can supply a point or two of the economy's needs, but of course, liberals never let the facts interfere with their propaganda.

Even Republicans George Schultz and Arnold Schwarzenegger have condemned the Koch Brothers, Valero and Tesoro for their attack on the "green future." It is working now, in the USA, China, Japan and Europe. Sure the first cars were in many ways less convenient than horses. Hard to find fuel, they would break down and were expensive. As time goes forward the new technology will replace the old.

I'm glad MSNBC is dispatching top reporters to Nevada to stop a dark era of Ensign and Angle that will destroy Nevada for years to come.

Nevada is the center for politics, which can't be bad for business. Harry Reid helped get Nevada the early primary.

How can anybody seriously give a rats butt about green energy when single women continue to spit out babies and married ones think having a family of eight is delightful.

.

When the liberals, or even conservatives for that matter start making an issue of overpopulation, then green energy will make sense. Until that time, it's simply an agenda.

.

Further, how exactly did we as a country go from morse code, then to a rotary phone, and then to a cell phone that does insanely complicated computations, shows movies, and numerous otherwise remarkable technological features, yet we still basically drive a car with basically the same combustion engine Ford developed a century ago.

.

If you want to put the U.S. back on the map, stop squelching technology and put the energy efficient car out there that we know exists.

1. Americans exporting renewable energy resources to Saudi Arabia? A Mountainview, Calif. company, SolFocus, announced a deal with a major construction company in Saudi Arabia.

Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia believes renewable sources could account for up to 10 percent of its power output by 2020 with prices coming down and a regulatory framework in place

According to a Saudi official, "We believe large scale power generation from solar can be achieved near the end of this decade, near 2020. Beyond 2020, the economics will be clearly in the favor of deployment of solar power,"

Still viewed as an obstructionist by global sustainability advocates, Saudi Arabia began investing in renewable energy recently. Why would the OPEC leader warm up to solar? : The region gets a lot of sun.

2. If renewable energy works against job growth, EU should be the poorest region by now. I feel a nation with a modern infrastructure is not always successful, without which base any country is unable to make it.

3. While some critics are counting cents on the utility bill, it is claimed that : " the U.S. uses about 24 percent of the world's oil, this equates to 20.9 million barrels a day. If the U.S chooses to embrace renewable energy, the U.S could save $750 billion per year and create about 6 million jobs".

4. As we are all aware, Senator Harry Reid is in charge of RES legislation, accordingly, the future and fate of renewable energy might be up to Nevadans.

Self-proclaimed environmentalists, as well as the author, scoff at nuclear power, and the clean, safe, cheap power it provides. Nuclear "is still a non-renewable resource" That's utter nonsense. You can reprocess the fuel that we already have many times over, and the known reserves are vast. By the time we run out, fusion will be ready to replace it.

You can't replace coal with wind and solar. That's clear as day. If you stifle nuclear power, you're keeping the air dirty.

We don't need to produce nuclear power here to help the environment. We can accept some of the waste in return for cash to every Nevadan as part of the minuscule risk added to their everyday lives, thereby encouraging more plants to be built around the country. People who use nuclear power already contribute to a fund for this purpose. It's about time we use it to help our economy.

One of the "green" projects being touted is the wind-turbine parts plant. Reid made a big deal out of that.

How many of you have forgotten that it is a joint venture with China? Why did Reid support that deal instead of finding a way for it to be an all-American project?

It's bad enough (and a significant factor in our economy problems) that almost everything we buy is already made in China. The thought of getting our paychecks from them, too, should be thoroughly repulsive.

Bobby G is finally HISTORY...Never to be heard from again. He is a SMARMY kind of guy. You know him by the way he writes on this board. The smug attitude comes with the squinty look and superior smile that instantly makes you hate a guy. Nevada is finally rid of two boneheads. Harry and Bobby. May they rest in peace!!!

She cares about the country? HA HA HA HA HA. She cares about herself, just like Palin.

Crazy Angle will phase out Social Security. Crazy Angle will phase out Medicare. Crazy Angle will repeal health care reform. Crazy Angle will phase out the Dept. of Education. Crazy Angle will phase out the V.A.

Do you need any of these things? If you do, why are you voting for this nut-case?

If green jobs are so great and practical, why do they have to receive massive subsidies? And what other parts of the economy suffer from the money provided to subsidize green jobs? Market economics work (ask Fidel Castro). Stop the subsidies and the real green jobs will surface. Continue with the subsidies and Nevada will suffer (unless you believe money from Washington is free). This article is pro-Harry Reid hogwash.

Here are the prices that President Barack Obama's Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects for various sources of electricity per megawatt hour in 2016 (in 2008 dollars): Conventional coal power: $78.10 Onshore wind power: $149.30 Offshore wind power: $191.10 Thermal solar power: $256.60 Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10As you can see, the prices for alternative energy are at a minimum almost double the cost of conventional coal power. So what would happen if Congress mandated that utilities obtain growing percentages of their power from renewable sources of energy? A Heritage Foundation analysis of 22.5 % RES by 2025 found: 1) household electricity prices would jump 36%; 2) industry prices would rise by 60%; 3) national income (GDP) would be cut by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; and most importantly 4) RES would kill more than 1,000,000 jobs.http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/21/morn...

The liberal news bias is on full display in this article! Yes, "green jobs", in a small way, will have some impact on the unemployment picture. But, after the construction phase, the workers will be on the job market again. Furthermore, the miniscule gain in green jobs will be dwarfed by the number of PERMANENT jobs which will be lost when the liberals in DC shut down the coal mining and power generation industries! (yes, this is in their play book). This move by the libs to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels in our country is a HUGE MISTAKE! It will further cripple our ability to compete with the burgeoning economies of China and India. We need to get some sanity back in DC. The libs have to go!

Right now green energy jobs destroy more jobs than they create - it takes more money to invest in Green energy than it produces in value. In other words, the money invested could have been used elsewhere to create more jobs and more value for Nevadans.

Of course since most Teabaggers think global warming is a hoax they just want to keep on polluting the environment by using oil, natural gas and coal and also continue our dependency on foreign oil. We can drill every where there is oil in the United States and have a couple months of supply. The use of "fracturing" chemicals to drill for natural gas is polluting ground water in several areas of the U.S. And of course, someone in Nevada is all for burning coal for their "cheap" electricity because they don't have to deal with the impacts of strip and mountain removal mining!

"Green Jobs" are like the Ethanol industry, they can only survive with massive goverement infusion of cash. These may be profitable at some future date but currently they cost more than they generate. The technology is lagging behind in many case to the expectation and promises they make. Solar, Wind, Ethanol and other pipe dreams assiste in the production of energy but areas where they might be beneficaial won't allow them to be build in their back yard. At present the ethanol industry has take food off the tables that we used to export to the rest of the world and raised our fuel prices. The benefits have been lost in the beautratic shuffld and to no avail as for as the enviroment is concerned. Wind has killed migatory birds and caused other problems that are currently being investigted. Solar takes massive amounts of water to produce the steam

How much of our immigration problem stems from the government subsidies for corn grown for ethanol affecting the price of corn in other countries, driving a migration of former farmers here, instead so they can hope to find work?

You don't get it. Spending $1 to get 50 cents worth of economic benefit is waste. Creating 1 green job at the expense of 2 regular jobs is waste.

Right now the Green movement is a movement of wealthy white people (more white than the Tea Party) that wants to waste money to feel good about themselves. Its not even clear that their policy prescriptions even save the environment at this time (see High Speed Rail and Electric Cars)

Wasted capital and human labor to unproductive or less productive sectors of the economy slow economic growth and retard wealth creation. This results in slower technological growth and fewer possible solutions to tomorrow's problems.

In other words, you want to save today's problems at the expense of our ability to solve future problems.

Sharon Angle is dangerous, and electing her to the United States Senate detrimental to so many of our values. Any tea partier worth his salt would be supportive of clean energy. Going solar immediately allows us to recoup up to 30% of solar costs in tax credits (not deductions, credits). It helps homeowners and corporations slash energy costs and create a hedge against rising energy bills. It creates new revenue streams for small businesses and installers. It also provides opportunity for unemployed contractors, electricians, roofers, etc., who have 80% of the skills needed to find new revenue streams in solar energy, a resource Nevada has more of than most any other state. Using solar to power our homes and businesses also asserts our energy independence. The U.S. currently ships 24.9 Billion U.S. overseas to sate our appetite for oil, and much of that goes to nations hostile to American interests. And speaking of American interests, this woman won't even tell us her position on the wars we're fighting. She wants to be a public official and wants us to elect her with no accountability? This woman is woefully misinformed and a shill for anti-Reid interests eager to galvanize their power bases with zero transparency. What's American about that? Vote for Harry Reid -- at least he understands the Constitution of the United States! And he DID support the tax cuts we're all now enjoying...except for the $700 billion in tax subsidies Sharon Angle and her ilk wish to give to the rich. Serving as a United States Senator is a serious responsibility and requires intelligence, a good grasp of the facts and the good old Republican value of accountability.

The home solar thing is criminal. It essentially gives people money paid by other ratepayers to subsidize a home solar system.

This is just the beginning--the utility has to pay you their costs (generation distribution, and transmission-the retail rate) for the excess power this system produces. This is subsidized by ratepayers.

If you install such as system on your roof, you also only pay for the electricity you use and the not the resources necessary to ensure that the grid is there to provide full service when it rains, or it is dark. All of these costs are paid by the public.

I think your argument can be addressed quite easily simply by adjusting the "buy-back" rate to account for the cost of the grid.

That way, when pulling energy from the grid a person would be paying normal rates, and when feeding energy they would be only receive credit for the energy itself while effectively paying the utility to transport it for them.

There is nothing inherently wrong with home solar production. This is really a non-issue other than working out cost details.

It is not just the buy back rate, it is the back up service. Essentially, the solar user with the net meter gets full requirements service 24/7 and only pays a portion of the true cost/value of this service when he/she uses it. This is more than a cost detail, it is a huge subsidy, which if eliminated would seriously undermine the economics of the solar system.

Not everything is about money. There are far more important things that are our concern, for instance the planet we live on.

Now, I dont necessarily buy into the govt version of climate change, in fact I believe it is a racket, but if we do nhothing because there is no money in it, what exactly are we teaching our kids?

People like PRG have their priorities on display for all to see$$$$$$$$$$$

We have a perfect oppurtunity to bounce back with innovative technology even if it starts out as a loss. We can find comfort knowing that we are laying the foundation for a tecnologically advanced, naturally harmonious future in which we live in balance with our environment instead of against it. How would the trees survive if they consumed more energy than was available?

The problem with politics is everything is reduced to dollars and cents (not sense). There is far more value in this universe than just frikking money. Just go north and look at the stars.

Meanwhile all you political douc@bags that insist on everything being a discussion on money and buisness. This birds for you.

There's something happening here What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a ballot over there Telling me I got to beware I think it's time we stop, citizens, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong Voting people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind I think it's time we stop...

Presumably NV Energy receives subsidies of one form or another. If so, I'm sure they know exactly how much they get per kw hour delivered.

It might be practical, given the new meters, to deduct that amount, if less than the rates charged, from what solar users would receive for selling back.

Rather than try to block solar, it would be better to speak up about what you think is wrong and find out if it can be addressed.

There is one approach that might address your concern, but I have no idea how practical it is. That would be for NE Energy to *reduce* the rate charged to other users based upon the percentage of power is supplied by home solar. They could still charge the home producers a "transport" fee, and other rate payers could see a small break in theory.

Obviously someone much more familiar with what actually goes on with the rates than me needs to explain the problems involved.

If I use 1,000 kilowatt hours per month--my bill will be about $126.39. $8.00 is a basic service charge everyone pays to have service.

About 45 cents of each dollar is a variable cost. My use goes down Nevada Powers cost goes down--dollar-for-dollar.

The other 55 cents is for largely fixed costs- power plants, transformers and wires. All of this is necessary to support every customer and some taxes and fees.

When a solar customer goes with a net meter--that 55 cents has to be made up by someone, otherwise the Nevada Power will go out of business. The value is to provide back up service on demand anytime the solar rack is not producing. The cost of this is about $65 per month. These costs get paid by ratepayers at some point.

Why should I not only subsidize the solar system, but also the back up power?

A solar customer should pay at a minimum the $8 dollar customer charge (they do) and the $65/month or $73 per month flat fee. When the customer uses electricity, they pay on the energy costs or about five or six cents per kilowatt hour.

The economics of 5 cent electricity are tough to overcome for a solar system. This isn't economy is just the opposite.

As a regular customer I have to subsidize the system (several thousands of $$ per installation, plus about $700 per year in fixed costs. These systems are not going on low-income houses, but the low income customer pays all the same. Hardly fair. Looks like a tax--a very regressive tax.

Republican Bush on American JOB DESTRUCTION Seem to think American Jobs Outsourcing, it Actually """""""" sustains American jobs """""""""Americans were better off importing it than producing product. Feb-23-2004

Republican Jeb Bush on American JOB DESTRUCTION agreed to award Coke $3,000 in tax credits for each of the 570 American jobs Outsourced.

Coke surpassed its quota of jobs, and was promised another $600,000 in tax credits to cover an additional 200 hires. As of this month, the company has collected about $1.7-million of $2.3-million in promised incentives.Republican Jeb Bush on American JOB DESTRUCTION agreed to award Coke $3,000 in tax credits for each of the 570 American jobs Outsourced.

The subsidy can be taken care of by charging customers for cost to provide service. It isn't hard and requires no special meters or anything. Just slap the right price on it.

Joe, you are right about the whole house efficiency--it is far cheaper than renewable energy systems slapped on the roof, and provide the greatest savings when energy use is highest. The concept of energy services providers has been around for ages. Right now the low income weatherization folks do the blower door test and sealing, but is there a market or providers in the market place?

Dear larry in Vegas. "Stop, hey, whats that sound" Buffalo Springfield.Don't you dare take my music, pervert it and use it for your own gain. Taking a protest song, one written to protest the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement and using those hallowed words for the tea party is a blasphemy. You're bankrupt and soulless. Your "movement" is bankrupt. Peace.

"Renewable energy equipments will become more efficient on the whole and their price will drop"

Renewable energy equipments have been around for over 50 years now and they have not much progress in efficiences or price.

Nevada Power was FORCED to reveal how much it was paying for renewables. It was 2 and 3 times more then it is paying for fossil fuel power.

Comparing renewables to oil is silly, too. They have very little to do with each other. The electrical power grid barely keeps up with just current demand. It one added car transportation to that grid then we will all be screwed.

hsr: I'm waiting to see alternative energy cost drop. They are just not ready to take over a huge % of grid. The Tea Party has it righgt.

LONDON, UK, Oct 12, 2010/ Troy Media/ -- If you're hankering to see Britain's green and pleasant land and rugged coastline, don't wait too long. In an increasingly desperate bid to meet its EU climate and renewable-energy targets, the British government is planning to build 10,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines -- many 400 feet high -- over the next 10 years.

The "British wind experience," however, constantly cited by Canadian, United States, and other advocates, far from saving the earth, turns out in practice to be costing the earth.

Costs have 'escalated markedly'

Last month the UK opened the world's latest and largest wind farm off the English coast at Thanet, Kent, amid a blaze of publicity. The 100 turbines are just stage one, with another 242 on way. Just a few weeks earlier, the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) -- one of the government's think tanks -- published a new report warning that wind-generation costs had "escalated markedly" since the "optimistic predictions of the early 2000s." According to the report, electricity generated by wind power in the UK now costs twice as much as that generated by gas or coal.

1. For example, it's well known that the price of solar panels has dropped 50% or so just in the past couple of years.

2. By cotrast, Scotland's renewable electricity goal for the next decade is being raised from 50 per cent to 80 per cent.

The Scottish Government said:

"Scotland is blessed with abundant natural energy sources, particularly in our seas, where Scotland is estimated to have a quarter of Europe's potential wind and tidal energy capacity and a tenth of its wave resource"

"Recent work by Scottish Enterprise has shown the huge potential for employment in the renewable industry, with up to 28,000 direct jobs being created to service the Scottish, UK and worldwide markets for offshore wind turbines. It has also been estimated that 60,000 new green jobs could be created by 2020 in low carbon industries"

"The value of the global low carbon economy is estimated to reach some #4.3 trillion by the middle of this decade so now is the time to act."

1. The wave of plug-in cars might be a big boon to electrical utilities so they can afford to broaden smart grid & renewable energy base.

2. Better still, they will charge mostly overnight with the untapped, or mostly WASTED electricity without having to build another power plant, as hydro & Wind & nuclear power plants keep operating around the clock.

3. Wind energy & e-cars charging overnight would be a perfect paring.

4. Used Batteries Can Be Used In Smart Grids. As EVs become more widely available, they are also churning out the used batteries down the road.

5. EVEN AFTER :

To the best of my knowledge, the battery in EVs manages to power houses for upwards of 3 days or so. Also, for a majority of motorists, their driving time is claimed to stand at around 1 hour.

While most people pay more attention to the expensive battery, by storing power from cheaper off-peak periods, the battery in EVs is able to power a house during expensive peak periods, even better, sell excess power back to the grid simultaneously, EVEN AFTER its automotive life.

6. Batteries will become more efficient on the whole and their price will drop, whereas the oil will simply go up and up as it becomes more scarce. As simple as that.

7. It is expected that EVs have the promise to help lower car accidents courtesy of the simple operation & quiet driving condition & less stress.

8. As we move on to electrification, as a bonus, the cost of gas prices would be stabilized.

The yellow and purple Audi A2 car took around seven hours to complete the 600-kilometre (372-mile) stretch, even had the heating on.

Driver Mirko Hannemann, the chief of DBM Energy, drove the distance at 90 km/h (55 miles per hour) on average, had the heat on and was able to whisk around a few more miles in the city. When the A2 electric finished, it still had 18% of the initial electric charge in the battery.

It has a lithium-metal-polymer battery. DBM Energy, the company that built the battery and electric motors into the Audi A2, said the battery would function for 500,000 kilometres.

A representative of the car said the Audi still featured all the usual creature comforts such as power steering, air-conditioning and even heated seats as well, so it was not like the car was especially made for long distance record attempts

The German engineers said their car was special because the battery was not installed inside the luggage area, but under the luggage area, meaning the full interior space of the car was still available

The battery, based on what DBM Energy calls the KOLIBRI AlphaPolymer Technology, comes with 97 percent efficiency and can be charged at virtually every socket. Plugged into a high-voltage direct-current source, the battery can be fully loaded within 6 minutes

The young inventor couldn't give an exact price for his battery -- he said that was dependent on scaling effects -- but vowed it wouldn't just be more powerful, but in the end also cheaper than conventional lithium ion batteries.

What's more important, the technology which made the trip possible is available today.

German Economics Minister Rainer Bruederle, who subsidized the drive, said it showed electric cars are not utopian but really work.

Fossil fuel, as pushed by the libertarian Koch Brothers does create more jobs: in the cancer wards, out at asthma inhaler manufacturing plants, and for grave diggers...Has a solar plant every blown up and killed 11 employees?